LA ESQUINA CALIENTE (THE HOT CORNER) - A STUDY OF PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY IN ACTION AROUND THE WORLD

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY vs REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

We as citizens of the United States observe politics from afar and the vast majority of us may participate in the political process only to the extent that we go to the polls once a year to vote. We may endeavor to follow the news accounts of our nation's politics as they unfold, and of the consequences those political actions yield, but we have little power to influence our "democratically" elected officials. Perhaps we write an occasional letter to our senator or representative, but we almost inevitably receive a vague and impersonal response explaining why they will vote in our opposition.

Over the decades, our representative democracy has been systematically undermined and has ultimately failed in preserving the well being of the people of this nation. The system that the founding fathers painstakingly devised in order to best serve the interests and the will of the people has been corrupted and the systems of checks and balances on power that they instituted have been stripped away. Most of us accept this reality as being beyond our control and continue to observe, comment, and complain without aspiring to achieving any real change, without any hope of instituting a new system of governance that would instead take directly into account your views, and the views of your neighbors, and would empower you to make real positive change possible in your communities.

This site will attempt to explore in depth the places in the world where people are successfully bringing about that type of change in the face of similar odds, where an alternate form of democracy, which is called participatory or direct democracy, is taking root. Initiative, referendum & recall, community councils, and grassroots organizing are but a few ways in which direct/participatory democracy is achieving great success around the world.

Our system of representative democracy does not admit the voice of the people into congressional halls, the high courts, or the oval office where our rights and our liberties are being sold out from underneath us. Our local leaders and activists in our communities, and even those local elected officials who may have the best of intentions are for the most part powerless to make real positive change happen in our neighborhoods, towns and villages when there is so much corruption from above.

In places like Venezuela, Argentina, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Brazil, South Africa, India, and the Phillipines, new experiments in grass roots community based governance are taking place. There is much to be learned from these and other examples of participatory democracy from around the world when we try to examine how this grass-roots based governance could begin to take root here in our own country in order to alter our political system so that it might better serve the American people.

In the hope that one day we can become a nation working together as a united people practicing true democracy as true equals, we open this forum…

This past Sunday in Mexico a referendum organized by the opposition PRD party of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was held in Mexico City and 9 other Mexican States. The 'citizen consultation' was an attempt to employ direct democracy to the question of President Calderon's proposed measures that would allow partial privatization of Mexico's state owned PEMEX oil company. The measures would allow foreign oil companies to partner with PEMEX in future exploration and development. Although turnout was lower than expected, the non-binding referendum resulted in a resounding NO to the privatization efforts. The hope of the PRD is that the vote will both enlighten the people about the need for more direct democracy while at the same time influencing lawmakers who are currently debating the changes to energy policy. Here are two pieces from the LA times on the subject. The first gives a summary of the results of the referendum and the second provides some more backround information. - Editor

Mexican voters oppose Calderon's plan for oil industry

In the capital, more than 80% issue a resounding 'no' to the proposal to allow private firms a greater role. In the nine states that also voted, more than 90% give the plan a thumbs down.

MEXICO CITY -- Turnout was light, but voters in a nonbinding referendum gave an overwhelming "no" to President Felipe Calderon's proposal to give private firms a bigger role in Mexico's government-controlled petroleum industry.

More than 80% of those who cast ballots Sunday in Mexico City opposed the plan, according to the official tally of the federal district released Monday. The results were even more lopsided outside the capital, where nine of Mexico's 31 states also participated. With about two-thirds of the ballots counted, more than 90% of those voters gave the president's proposal a thumbs down.

Slightly more than 1.5 million people cast ballots Sunday. Organizers had been hoping for a turnout twice that size in the greater Mexico City area alone.

Orchestrated by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, the so-called Citizen Consultation was the first of three public referendums to be held throughout Mexico over the next month to gauge public opinion on pending energy reforms.

The results have no official bearing on legislation being hashed out in Congress. But the left-leaning PRD is gambling that strong public opposition will force lawmakers to back off proposals to open portions of the state petroleum monopoly to private or foreign firms.

Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, a PRD member and potential presidential candidate in 2012, praised the event as a way for ordinary Mexicans to be heard on a matter vital to the nation's future.

"The will of the people that was expressed freely is clearly opposed" to the president's legislation, Ebrard said.

Critics lambasted the event as a politically motivated stunt to embarrass Calderon in the middle of heated negotiations. Members of the president's National Action Party had charged that one of the two questions on the ballot was worded to elicit a "no" response, making the results a foregone conclusion.

The head of Pemex, the state-owned oil company, dismissed the significance of Sunday's results.

"The turnout was limited . . . the conclusions were expected," said Director-General Jesus Reyes Heroles.

Mexico is the world's sixth-largest petroleum producer, and the industry is the nation's largest taxpayer. But output and proven reserves are sliding badly after years of government neglect. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to tap Mexico's deep-water crude deposits. Mexican law prohibits foreign and private firms from investing in the energy sector.

Calderon in April sent legislation to Congress that would loosen some restrictions on Pemex, enabling it to team up with foreign oil companies to extract the nation's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage.

Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.

MEXICO CITY -- A bitter debate on how to rescue Mexico's troubled state-owned oil company went directly to the people Sunday as residents of the capital and nine states voted in a nonbinding referendum on President Felipe Calderon's plan to open some portions of the petroleum industry to outsiders.

The vote, organized by the opposition Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, has no official bearing on energy legislation making its way through Congress. But opponents of Calderon's reforms hope a decisive "no" vote will force legislators to back off.

The balloting was the first of three so-called Citizen Consultation referendums over the next month that will eventually cover Mexico's 31 states and federal district. Organizers were gearing up for as many as 2 million people to cast ballots in the capital alone Sunday, although a light turnout was reported at some polling places.

Mexico City's historic center was bustling with poll workers wearing T-shirts emblazoned with "I decide," the referendum's slogan. A six-piece band performed "The oil isn't for sale," a popular refrain among Mexicans wary of privatizing Pemex, the state oil company.

A mix of urban youth, working people and seniors, some wearing sombreros and traditional garments, lined up at the outdoor polling stations. Some said they viewed participation as a civic duty.

"The petroleum . . . belongs to the people and to the Mexican nation," said Rafael Mendoza Villeda, an agricultural consultant. "We are defending the oil that's at the heart of the country."

Shoemaker Jose Picon Fuentes said he doubted that Mexico's industry could be strengthened with more private-sector help. "The people want the oil to stay in the hands of the state," he said.

Foreigners "are going to obtain the earnings and take them all," he said.

The PRD has promoted the referendum as an exercise in direct democracy and a way for ordinary citizens to have a voice in a vital issue.

Critics have dismissed the event as political theater directed by leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the PRD candidate who lost to the conservative Calderon by a razor-thin margin in 2006. Many voters in Mexico City were expected to be party members or employees of the capital's PRD-controlled government. Media reports suggested some were being pressured by their bosses to participate.

The wording of the two questions on the ballot was drafted by academics from respected Mexican universities. But Calderon's National Action Party has charged that at least one of the questions is structured in such a way as to elicit a "no" response from voters.

Pemex is the world's No. 6 oil producer, a major supplier to the United States and the Mexican government's largest taxpayer. It's also a powerful symbol of national sovereignty.

Mexico annually celebrates the 1938 nationalization of its petroleum resources. Booting foreigners from its oil patch, chief among them America's Standard Oil, was one of the country's proudest moments.

But legislators for decades treated Pemex like a cash machine, siphoning its revenue while reinvesting little in exploration and development. Now Mexico has less than a decade's worth of proven reserves remaining. Pemex lacks the expertise and capital to drill deep-water wells, which can cost more than $100 million.

Through the first six months of this year, Mexico's total oil production averaged 2.86 million barrels a day, the lowest output since 1996.

Calderon in April introduced legislation that would allow Pemex to team up with foreign oil companies to extract Mexico's undersea oil. His plan also calls for more private investment in areas such as refining and storage. Opponents say Calderon's real objective is to privatize Pemex, a charge the president denies.

PRD lawmakers paralyzed the House and Senate chambers with a two-week sit-in to prevent a speedy vote on Calderon's reforms. They were helped by brigades of working-class women who camped outside the buildings to prevent legislators from rival parties from entering.

A pro-Calderon group countered with television spots comparing Lopez Obrador to Hitler, Mussolini and the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who shut down their nations' legislatures.

The standoff ended with an agreement to hold hearings in which dozens of experts testified on many issues related to Pemex. The public remains deeply divided. A poll conducted this month by the national daily Reforma showed that 48% of those surveyed supported Calderon's legislation, while 52% were either opposed or undecided.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which ruled Mexico for seven decades, has come forward with its own energy reform proposal. The plan puts stricter limits on the role of the private sector than the president's version.

Analysts say the PRI's involvement is a sign that a compromise will probably be reached when lawmakers return from their summer recess. But some doubt that any reform crafted to appease bickering politicians will be enough to turn around Pemex.

And at a time when other Latin American governments are asserting greater control over natural resources, persuading Mexicans to loosen their grip on their petroleum won't be easy.

"Everyone in Mexico knows that Pemex needs to change," said Enrique Bravo, Latin America analyst at the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk consulting firm.

But with oil selling near record prices "it's hard, politically speaking, to convince people that they should share it with private companies," Bravo said. "That's a tough sell."

Sunday, July 27, 2008

As this article illustrates, environmental groups have been able to implement conservation measures using Swiss direct democracy. Initiative and referendum allow the populus to protect their environment and ecology when higher powers in government and industry may have no incentive or desire to do so. - Editor

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/143682For a glimpse of primeval Europe, head for the high mountains of eastern Switzerland. In the wild scenery of the Swiss National Park, the authorities have sought to re-create the conditions that prevailed 5,000 years ago. No trees are felled, no meadows mown and no animals hunted. The ibex and the bearded vulture, once driven to near extinction, now flourish again after their reintroduction in the last century. Wolves have returned to the region, and so has the occasional bear.

A rare gesture to nature conservation from a nation famously devoted to commerce? Not so. When it comes to environmental protection, the Swiss can point to tradition. As far back as 1914, the nation created the oldest national park in the Alps or anywhere in Central Europe. And the tradition persists with a heap of legislation that establishes more than 20 new national parks. Small wonder that the country took first place in Yale and Columbia's Environmental Performance Index with a set of near-perfect marks.

It's an achievement that few would challenge. More than half the forests that cover 30 percent of the country have gotten Forest Stewardship Council certification, the international hallmark of good practice. In the EPI, Switzerland scored 65 in the effectiveness of its conservation measures, compared with an average of 25 for its neighbors and 51 for others of similar wealth. This is all the more impressive considering its population density—176 people per square kilometer, more than twice the figure for Greece, largely concentrated in the valleys and lowlands. The country has managed to juggle the needs of people with the needs of its wildlife, earning it more than double the average European score for biodiversity. "You can swim in any of our lakes, and turn on any tap and drink the water with pleasure," says Hans-Peter Fricker, head of the Swiss office of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

Why such dedication? One explanation begins with history and the importance of the Alpine landscape in the national psyche. The four original cantons that came together to form the nucleus of the Swiss nation in the 13th century encompass spectacular mountain landscapes. "The Alps are part of the whole Swiss mythology," says Reto Soler, Swiss representative of the International Commission for the Protection of the Alps. "It is where Switzerland was born."

Environmentalists have taken advantage of Swiss direct democracy, which allows citizens to demand a referendum on the issues of their choosing. The current construction of the world's longest and deepest rail tunnel beneath the St. Gotthard massif in the Alps—to divert heavy freight traffic off the roads—follows a national vote. So, too, did moves to ban heavy foreign trucks.

More than 40 years ago Parliament passed laws to protect wetlands, meadows and Alpine streams and glaciers. Care for the environment is now written into the Constitution. An article added in 1996 explicitly obliges the government to promote sustainable farming and the upkeep of the rural landscape. New parks, seen as a boost for tourism and conservation, will be scattered across the country.

Friday, July 25, 2008

This article from Nigeria highlights the trends that many activists have been reporting in that country. It outlines the reasons why participatory democracy is the best system for self-governance and how it can improve the way that countries develop. -Editor

The fact that democracy connotes a system where the citizens are actively involved, either directly or indirectly, in making decisions affecting their destinies has elicited a widely held belief that democracy is the best form of government.

The debate on the extent to which popular sovereignty should be guaranteed has existed over the years among political philosophers, especially among the social contract school. While scholars like Thomas Hobbes and Roseau subscribe to absolute sovereignty, John Locke emphasises limited state sovereignty in which the citizens can hold the government accountable. The Lockian idea has been the basic of the American (otherwise known as liberal or preventative) democracy which Nigeria has adopted since the second republic.

Today, representative democracy, especially in the or consciously replaced, sometimes with such ideas as politics of accommodation, elitism or godfatherism. Godfathers are those with considerable means to successfully foist their will on the public, instead of their political parties doing so. Under this circumstance, political parties lack the capacity to act contrary to the wishes and aspirations of these godfathers because they depend on them to bankroll their campaigns and deploy their influence to see candidates through elections.

When this takes place, it becomes impossible or even an offence for citizens to question the actions of the government, since in the first place, the process of election was not on the whims and caprices of the electorates.

The consequence of this scenario further reproduces itself in situations where sustainable development is defined as a development that meets the needs of the present without even compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It is a development that is not only all encompassing but equally enduring.

It is no gain saying, that when the citizens are actively involved in the democratic process, inform of voting their choice candidates, involvement in the development programmes, consultations before bye laws are enacted and even criticising existing structure and making policy recommendation, it becomes easy for them to enjoy some since of belonging. It also gives them the room to take part in deciding their destinies. Most importantly, participatory democracy help, to a large extent, in the appropriate channelling of the development programmes.

Furthermore, to ensure participatory democracy, citizens should be made politically conscious by both the National Orientation Agency (NOA), the public and private print and non print media and the non-governmental organisations.

The government can also do this by encouraging and enabling laws that will properly and fundamentally integrate local agencies like the C.D.C., the community based organisations (CBOS) among others in the planning and execution of projects especially in the rural areas.

This will help not only to erace the conversion of the LGA treasury into a group and family purse, but will also expunge situations where elected political leaders become unquestionable and unaccountable to the people.

Class and ethnic marginalisation is another important antithesis to sustainable development. Political office holders and indeed our democratic system should ensure that programmes on both infrastructural and human capacity development cuts across class and ethnic boundaries. It is when these are done that we can hope to see the possibility of domesticating the aims of the New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) as well as the United Nations Millennium and Development Goals (MDGS) to which Nigeria is a signatory and which stimulated Nigeria’s initiation of a new medium term development strategy titled the National Empowerment and Development Strategy (NEEDS) in May 2004.

Participatory democracy will also help to engage the idle youth and by so doing reduce social volatility and youth restiveliness .

With the recent conclusion of the local government elections the emerging leaders should see the entire local government as their constituencies irrespective of party and intra party affiliations. Their policies and programmes should assume a colouration of “NO VICTOR NO VANGUISH”.

It is only when these are done that we can claim to have made our democracy not only participatory and people oriented but equally an agency for sustainable development.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The following piece gives an interesting assessment of the basics behind the communal councils in Venezuela and how they are creating a grassroots based system of government while at the same time providing channels by which the bureaucracy that has traditionally stifled that participatory democracy can be bypassed and rendered harmless to the process of strengthening the people's power. - Editor

Kendra Fehrer Ponniah is is a Ph.D. student in Development and Anthropology at Brown University, in Providence, RI. This article is based on research she conducted in January and December of 2006 and June of 2007, interviewing communal council members from seven communities near Barquisemeto, Venezuela.

Pro- Chávez demonstrators, September 5, 2006. Photo: Cesar Aponte

In mid-2006, several months before the presidential elections, the Venezuelan government headed by left-leaning President Hugo Chávez passed a new law. The law was called the Law on Communal Councils, and it was a cornerstone of the new political strategy to deepen democratic participation in Venezuela. As of June 2007, there were 20,000 registered communal councils across the country, plus tens of thousands more in formation. Televised speeches from the floor of the national assembly referenced the communal councils as the pivotal means of social change in Venezuela. On the tall walls of the subway stations in Caracas, gigantic red murals proclaimed the communal councils as an engine of Venezuela's transition to 21st century socialism.

From Representative to Participatory Democracy

The communal councils are essentially neighborhood assemblies with political and fiscal powers. As described in the law, they function as neighborhood planning councils, responsible for decisions regarding infrastructure and planning-for example, where to set up the new multi-purpose sports court or what sorts of services to request for disabled youth within the community. In addition, the councils can initiate their own projects with funds obtained from the federal, state, and municipal governments and they are expected to bring together under one umbrella representatives from various community groups.

A typical communal council is made up of about 20 people, elected by a community of no more than 400 families. The geographic basis of the communal council allows members to know each other, precipitating an accountability that most representative politics fail to achieve, and furthermore ensuring that political and economic decisions made by the council are embedded in the social framework of the community.

The communal councils diverge from the typical representative democracy in one other significant way. All decisions made by the communal council can be reversed by popular vote. The vote, taken in assembly (at which 20% of all persons over 15 in the community must be present), is binding.

Community members seem to sense that this emergent form of local government is profoundly different from the previous form, in which political participation occurred once a year at the voting booth. A sentence heard over and over among community organizers is that the communal councils are transforming Venezuela into a "participatory" democracy, rather than a "representative" democracy. The communal councils provide a structure for direct democratic participation.

The potential impact of communal councils to transform the Venezuelan social and political fabric is no doubt exciting. However, like all processes of change, this one is not without challenges.

Confronting Bureaucracy

The situation faced by La Tamaca*, a neighborhood outside the city of Barquisimeto is emblematic of the challenges many community organizations face. The residents had pooled their recourses to construct a wall that would separate their community from the uninhabited land behind their homes. Together they had raised over $30,000 Bs. (10,000 USD) to complete half the wall. Once the community established a communal council, they applied for funds from the municipal government to complete the construction. The municipal government granted those funds, nearly twice what the community itself had raised, to complete the second half of the project.

The catch was, despite strong objections from the community, that the municipal government declared that it would now manage the project.

Instead of hiring workers and contractors from within the community, the municipal government hired its own contractors and suppliers. Five months later, the funds had run out, and the remaining half of the wall was only partway done.

Even with the many pro-poor initiatives over the last decade of Chávez's administration, communities are still fighting for a voice. The efforts of many, like La Tamaca, are being frustrated by the "politics as usual" attitude of many municipal and state governments. In the words of one community member: "We have a lot of public officials who are reactionaries dressed up as revolutionaries. They are more interested in their jobs than in this [revolutionary] process."

One of the purposes of the communal councils, according to a high ranking government official, is precisely to address this problem. By creating a direct link to the president and federal ministries, the communal council structure allows organized communities to bypass, or at least challenge, the clientelistic bureaucracy of municipal and state governments. Under the new law, communal councils can apply for funds directly from the Ministry of Participation and Social Development. However, some critics argue that this structure creates the danger of too much national control over grass-roots community structures.

City Council or Social Movement?

At their best, the communal councils can be used as political leverage to represent community interests at odds with the local government institutions. "Hidrolara [the public water company] is defunct," proclaimed Ismila, a community organizer in a working class neighborhood to the east of Barquisimeto. For the previous two days raw sewage had been backlogging into the streets along ten blocks of the neighborhood, including the block in front of the community health clinic. Despite numerous calls to the engineer appointed to their area, the engineer had been delaying his arrival. After he missed the appointed time for the second day in a row, five members of the communal council decided they needed to take more immediate action. They called four more colleagues from the council and caught a ride into the city center, where the Hidrolara offices were located.

At the office, they demanded to speak to the person in charge of emergency maintenance. Two hours later they left with an engineer to remedy the problem. Ismila said: "We learned today that Hidrolara is useless as an institution, it does not work for the communities. These officials think they know everything and don't listen to the community until there's a problem."

Some state and municipal institutions in Venezuela serve particular political interests, rather than the public good. When the public institutions do not fulfill their ascribed duties, the communal councils like that in Ismila's neighborhood can apply pressure. Although the council itself did not have jurisdiction over the water system, through their recognition as a communal council they have the political resources to apply political pressure to ensure the democratic distribution of water.

Not all communal councils are as politically astute as Ismila's, but a surprising number are. The community members who participate in the communal council possess a wide range of political experience, from complete novices to seasoned community organizers. Commonly, a communal council will contain five or six long-term organizers who see the communal council as simply the newest framework for emancipatory politics. It is often these more experienced organizers who are instrumental in forming the communal council.

In the case of Ismila's community, the communal council formed out of the Health Committee. The Health Committee was established several years ago, when the community was told that they were eligible to receive a Cuban doctor in the community. "There are lots of rumors that the doctors are there to hurt people, they don't have proper training, etc. We had to educate the community that this wasn't true. Thankfully, the doctor we got was very good and little by little, people stopped being afraid and came. When we heard about the communal councils law, we knew we had to get involved. Now the Health Committee is a working group of the communal council." The communal councils serve the powerful political function of coalescing a variety of community efforts.

Does Pluralism Include the Anti-Democratic?

Contrary to the perception by many of Chávez's critics, the communal councils are not composed exclusively of flag-waving Chávez supporters. In the town of El Cují, communal council member Mirabel identifies as the opposition. During the last elections, she transformed her home into a "hot corner," a common opposition protest tactic, which involves blasting anti-Chávez music onto the street and blaring sirens every 15 minutes to signify that Venezuelan democracy "is under attack." Why does she participate in the communal councils? "To keep an eye on the Chavistas," she responds, "to make sure they're not mishandling funds."

Opposition to President Chávez is located mainly, but not exclusively, in the small, active, and largely unencumbered middle and upper classes. Although some communal councils have been formed in elite neighborhoods, these do not represent the majority. The majority of communal councils are in poor and working class neighborhoods.

Still, even within poor communities, a minority do tend to identify as opposition, often because of enduring affiliation with the previously dominant parties. So, not infrequently, a communal council will have several staunch opposition members.

Despite the highly charged political rhetoric around the communal councils as a key element of the Bolivarian Process, within the actual meetings of the councils party-politics are seldom discussed. More often, topics of discussion deal with urgent community needs. Instead of playing a divisive role in the community, the communal councils appear, in some cases, to be fulfilling a reconciliatory role. Through regular interaction in meetings, often accompanied by socializing outside formal gatherings, the communal councils are becoming a space for breaking down political barriers.

Although pluralism is a central tenet of a democratic society, when some of those diverse constituents are actively anti-democratic the situation becomes a bit more complex.

While the minority opposition represents its position as one of advocating for democratic rights, the democracy for which the opposition advocates is essentially a liberal democracy, bent on the protection of private property and individual rights. It is precisely this form of democracy that has prevailed in Venezuela historically, and which the current government is trying to transform. The model proposed by the opposition conflicts with Venezuela's emergent radicalized democracy, which seeks to expand collective rights and responsibilities. For example, the constitutional reforms rejected in a referendum on December 2, 2007 included language to create three new types of collective property.

Why do political frameworks matter to the communal council? Although opposition and pro- Chávez residents can agree on addressing urgent community needs, the types of solutions offered to neighborhood problems could be vastly different. A liberal democratic model is not incompatible with the neoliberal framework that dominated the country for the last decades. Under this model, a communal council could offer micro-credit for individual businesses, without precipitating any shift in consciousness towards new notions of collective responsibility and social development.

One project I observed did just that. An organizer from another council explained, "The communal council gave out loans for everything, to start a phone stand, to buy motorcycles to use for ëmoto-taxis', to start hair salons… there was a lot of individual profit, but not a lot of community benefit." In contrast, a reconfigured democratic model would value not only the material benefits to the individual, but how the collective would benefit, both materially and in terms of participation.

The communal councils do not have an easy task. They face the challenge of maintaining political pluralism, challenging entrenched political and economic interests, and responding to the demands of a population whose basic needs have been ignored for decades. As one long-time activist said with both optimism and concern, "The communal councils are our primary hope for the long-term success of the revolution. They have the potential to change the very fabric of this country."

Monday, July 21, 2008

In the wake of the Sept. 2006 bloodless military coup in Thailand, large street protests have been organized in the name of democracy. The following article gives one viewpoint from one group the PAD. Whether demonstrations be pro Thaksin or anti Thaksin, it is important for the people's voice to be heard, on the streets if necessary, in the absense of a direct democratic forum for expressing the will of the people. - Editor

Demonstrators generally come from only a few groups with similar interests, writes Piyaporn Wongruang

While the asphalt surface of Ratchadamnoen avenue can turn hot under the burning afternoon sun, the same road, if it rains, can also bring the temperature down so quickly it can leave one shivering. For over 15 days, supporters of the anti-government People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) have experienced such tormenting weather conditions.

If they find the conditions too harsh and unbearable, they just disperse temporarily. When things improve, they regroup to continue their struggle to unseat what they claim is an immoral government.

The PAD, which took to the streets on May 25, is demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej and his government as they view that those who are part of the current government are just nominees of former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

The protesters have accused them of being absolutely corrupt, causing divisions in society, and interfering in the work of agencies investigating the alleged wrongdoing by Mr Thaksin and his cabinet members.

Just like any other demonstration in the past, the biggest challenge facing the PAD is to make its supporters stick together and remain united. Since unity is strength, failure to do so would certainly bring cracks into the movement and cause a serious setback for the protesters.

This is much easier said than done. Since people don't think alike most of the time, even if they happen to be on the same side during a street protest, collective behaviour is what determines which way a public gathering is heading.

There have hardly been any specific studies on this in the country, say mental health and public health experts.

''We have so far only loosely observed the mental condition of those participating in demonstrations, but we have not conducted any scientific study of crowd or mob psychology yet. Since demonstrations these days have become more intense, we think the time has arrived for such a study,'' said M.L. Somchai Chakrabhand, chief of the Mental Health Department.

A study made in 1997 by Col Pongskorn Rodchompoo while he was pursuing his doctorate degree suggested some of the motivations behind demonstrations by people here.

His report on ''Political Participation of Thais and Factors Affecting a Prolonged Demonstration'', covering demonstrations after the 1992 military coup for a period of five years, concluded that demonstrators generally came from only a few groups with similar interests.

They tended to have their immediate priorities achieved rather than any ideological goals, according to the research.

Although this can help organisers of a demonstration to control the crowd more easily, it was found that the bond among demonstrators themselves was quite weak, making them vulnerable to any enticing government offers, it added.

This also left little room for analysing the concerned structural problems and finding long-term solutions to the demonstrators' woes. And that was the reason why direct democracy was developing at a very slow pace, the research noted.

While participating in a rally, demonstrators put their trust in the leaders and the organisers, particularly about their safety.

This, he wrote, reflected how passive Thai people were in general in demanding that they be allowed to look after their own affairs under democratic rule, and thus were often taken advantage of, the research concluded.

In order to strengthen people's power and fill a gap in representative democratic politics, Col Pongskorn suggested demonstrations be lifted to a new level, with closer connections between city dwellers and rural people through wider issues such as decentralisation of power, and development of shared ideological goals rather than immediate benefits of particular groups.

Suriyasai Katasila, coordinator of the PAD, seems to realise these constraints and opportunities well.

Although the psychological state of the PAD crowd has not yet been much understood, the organisers have tried to eliminate any conditions that may promote violence or cause the protest to crumble.

Despite the physical hardships, the group, which has at least 20 organisations lending it support, has agreed to stick to the principle of non-violence in its demonstration, now in its second week.

Mr Suriyasai believes that with such a clear principle, provocation from any ill-intentioned people would not succeed in unsettling the protesters.

During the ongoing rallies, the PAD's key leaders have often reminded the demonstrators of their stand on non-violence, meaning the protesters should not respond to any external violence, and even lie low if they were attacked.

To ensure the demonstrators' safety, the PAD leaders have also come up with their own security guards.

The organisers have also taken their fight to a new level with a new political goal of ''rebuilding the country'' after getting rid of what they call ''the Thaksin regime''.

''People can see that we have resorted to a peaceful demonstration and tried to be as patient as possible,'' said Mr Suriyasai.

''Our society has reached a turning point as we believe that the present democracy is at its lowest point, under which power is directed by interests of those winning an election, not true public interests. We just can no longer sit back and repeatedly convince ourselves to believe that democracy comes from an election,'' he added.

Kamonchanok, a 43-year-old Bangkok resident from the Sathon area who joined the demonstration on the very first day, said she and her friends sometimes feel very angry when inaccurate information is passed on to the demonstrators. ''For instance, the government seems not to care about the plight of the people, but only its allies.''.

However, they were rational enough to think and decide for themselves what was appropriate and what was not.

''Most of the demonstrators here have now realised what is going on in our country, and that to resort to violence is not the answer,'' said Ms Kamonchanok, who recently closed down her family's grocery shop after a modern convenience store opened nearby.

''It is time to protect each other from bad influence. And we now have the space here that is truly opened to us to do so,'' said another protester, who refused to disclose her last name.

Uthan, a 22-year-old master's degree student from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi, who joined the demonstration after learning about it from the internet, said the demonstration was lively and sometimes provocative.

This should be seen as more of a challenge than anything else.

All you need is a little understanding of the present political situation among the public at large, said the student.

''I was sometimes offended by my friends who asked me why was I here and for what,'' said Uthan, a new face at the demonstration.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

This piece from the state of Western Australia calls for more direct democracy to be brought to that state in the form of initiative and referendum in an attempt to bring more democracy and to diminish voter alienation. It is interesting to note that in order to back up his argument the author cites not the more typical examples of where initiative and referendum are functioning effectively, such as Switzerland, but instead points to the U.S.A. where it is practiced at the state level in many states, but not the federal level. People unaware that practices of direct democracy do exist at the state and local level in the U.S.A. typically think of the U.S. as being a republic with a representative democracy through and through. Where it does exists in the U.S. initiative and referendum is indeed functioning well, and we as always advocate it's implementation at the federal level as well. - Editor

The Carpenter government's bungled handling of the lobbying sector and the opposition's failure to suggest constructive reforms suggests Western Australia's major parties are unlikely to ever offer a steady stream of competent public policy administrators.

And that's almost certainly because the party machines attract and cultivate individuals who not only lack basic administrative skills, but show no desire to learn and master them.

None of the party machines truly values individuality, preferring instead to constantly emphasise party loyalty, that is, follow leaders who simply criticise the other side.

It's always about factions, wheeling and dealing for personal gain, and other careerist considerations that so easily sneak in ahead of what's good for WA.

The predominance of such over-arching and stultifying characteristics has meant those who value good governance and despise such behaviour avoid politics.

So many talented individuals prefer instead to make money in the private sector and embark on hobbies and other interests.

Compounding this is the easily ignored tendency by politicians to high-tail parliament for other careers following relatively brief terms in government.

Here one must name names.

Consider, firstly, the Liberal side.

Why did such relatively young men as Barry MacKinnon, Bill Hassell, and Richard Court, leave parliament when they did?

One doesn't have to be Copernicus to realise that, if they'd remained, their party would today be begging them to be leader.

And if any of these had been leading their party to the February 2004 election - which Labor won by just more than 1,000 votes - that man would now be premier.

Nor can the Labor side be ignored.

State Scene has no doubt that if former deputy-premier Mal Bryce, one-time senior Labor minister Keith Wilson, or former Labor leader Ian Taylor, were still MPs, they'd be exceptionally strong contenders for executive posts.

So, here are six individuals with well over 100 years of parliamentary and administrative experience. Both individually and together, they could offer markedly better governance and public behaviour than we're presently receiving.

Yet all departed the political scene well ahead of time.

Why?

Is it because the MPs' superannuation is too generous?

Is it because experienced MPs get thoroughly sick and tired of the low standard of political participation in their respective parties which, unfortunately, are now subsidised by taxpayers, thereby making them even less responsive to voters?

Is it because our entire parliamentary system of governance is stale, uninspiring and not truly democratic?

State Scene suspects it's all these plus several other less obvious reasons.

Surely it's time those controlling our dilapidated party machines got together and launched an informal - non-taxpayer funded - inquiry into this crucial question.

If that's not done, WA will continue to bungle along in the way it's been doing for decades, lurching from one administration to another. Then, after each four- or eight-year period, voters are forced to revert to a former unresponsive dilapidated team now manned by more inexperienced individuals.

And so on, and on.

For that reason, State Scene has urged that parliament should look at introducing a far greater degree of democracy right across public life.

Starting at the top, this would mean electors having at least a confirmatory vote on who becomes governor, after which Buckingham Palace would be asked to give its nod if Australia remains a monarchy.

This could be done with premiers continuing to nominate governors but the chosen individual would not take up the vice-regal post until after there had been a binding state-wide confirmatory referendum.

Such a procedure would compel premiers to seek out people acceptable to a majority of voters at the ballot box.

If a nominee failed to attract 50 per cent plus one vote, the premier would need to go back and try again.

We also need to thoroughly overhaul the way judges are appointed.

Presently, attorneys-general get a bright idea on who they'd like to put onto the bench and that's basically it - that person becomes a judge.

Why aren't such nominees compelled to face an upper house judicial committee where they're thoroughly quizzed before their nomination is confirmed or rejected by a vote of the entire Legislative Council?

That's how US Supreme Court judges are appointed.

If that happened here many of the ongoing silly, indeed, quite outrageous, decisions our judiciary hands down would more likely be expunged.

Too many judges are living on cloud nine.

Unfortunately, our upper house is too lazy and unimaginative to opt for this reform.

And there's also a desperate need to infuse greater voter involvement into lawmaking in general.

The only way to do this is by adopting Swiss-system direct democracy, which subjects politicians to constant oversight by voters.

All legislation that would be passed by the parliament under such an arrangement would firstly sit on the lower house's table for 100 days before being sent to the governor for Royal Assent.

During those 100 days, between 3 and 5 per cent of electors would be required to sign a petition calling for a state-wide binding referendum to decide the bill's fate.

State Scene's guess is that this would probably spark two or so referendums a year.

Such a direct democratic procedure would firstly force politicians to be in regular consultation with voters in ways they've never done, in an attempt to avoid a referendum on a particular bill being called.

Such close and ongoing voter consultation would automatically lead to better and more responsive law making.

There would undoubtedly be instances where the required number of citizen signatures would trigger referendums, which would be good since the adjudication would fall upon the people to democratically decide what would or would not be the law of the land.

Among other things, this would mean our dullard party machines could join the fray to compete for support for laws.

Variants of direct democracy exist in a large number of American states.

Direct democracy places and keeps elected representatives in a secondary or a more responsive role permanently since bills deemed, initially by a minority of voters, to be unacceptable could come to referendum involving all voters.

Not widely known in Australia is the fact that voters in 18 American states have the right to bring on constitutional amending initiatives; voters in 21 American states have the right to actually initiate laws that politicians either refuse or don't think of enacting; and voters in 24 American states can veto laws politicians seek to impose upon all electors.

Direct democracy transforms voters into bosses - with politicians having a secondary but still important role to play.

The absence of all this was recently noted by an Australian academic who wrote: "Australia's party system still echoes the dying call of the old European class wars.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

From Sri Lanka we hear of the common shortcoming shared by so many other governments, that of being systemically incapable of responding to the demands and the will of the people. This editorial demands a new constitution be written by a constituent assembly due to the fact that politics has become more of a rent-seeking venture than a system to protect and serve the population. However, it is also necessary to note that a new constitution does not necessarily in itself ensure a more transparent government or increased public participation, only through the dedication of a committed population will any society be able to completely revamp the system for effective and enduring participatory practices. -Editor

"Let us all co-operate to give our people prosperity and a better future," stated Sri Lanka’s first Prime Minister D.S. Senanayake. Sixty years on, our politicians have yet to agree to co-operate to usher in prosperity. They are instead selfishly pursuing their own personal interest at the expense of the national interest. They have collectively ensured the ruin of this country, even the image and influence we had abroad fifty years ago has been brought down to near zero.

The original mistake that was made, to my mind, was when the Soulbury Commission did not take off from the Donoughmore Constitution but took the easy way out and conveniently introduced the Westminster model. The Donoughmore Constitution may have had its drawbacks or shortcoming but at least we had worked it for more than a decade and knew of its shortcomings; the necessary amendments could have been introduced and the system refined. Instead the Soulbury Commission threw the baby out with the bathwater. Its greatest merit was that cooperation and not confrontation was the basis of the constitution. The Soulbury Constitution introduced confrontation of a form we had never known before; after 60 years it has spread hatred and left this country divided at every level of society as never before.

What passes for Democracy in this country is a mere shell of the real thing; the kernel has been removed by our politicians over the years. The political culture of this country has been built on adversarial, confrontational politics without regard to the national interest. Our politicians have missed the wood for the trees. This is the unfortunate tradition which they seem to want to perpetuate. The cement that has held this form of confrontational politics together has been, the vulgar pursuit of political power, for with it goes the opportunity to mount the gravy train and get rich quickly. In the process have we not become a morally degenerate society? Could anyone deny that?

Politics in this country is today a blood sport-governed by the rules of the slum---where the criminal underworld rules and where the scum of our society predominate. Politicians were for some years the patrons of the scum but the wheel appears to have turned and the scum from the slums, with their values, have begun to lord it over the politicians. Some have even become politicians and we citizens are the victims.

The two main parties seek to outbid each other for the Sinhala vote. This has been why we have not been able to reach a national consensus on any major issue including, what we could offer the Tamil people. The consequence of this competition and the fact that hard-line ‘organised’ Sinhala groups were not prepared to share power in any effective way with the minorities (no proportional representation on an ethnic basis at national or cabinet level) has resulted in our present predicament. It should be mentioned that after the late GG Ponnambalam left the Kotelawela Cabinet, there was only Chelliah Kumarasuriyar in Mrs Bandaranaike’s government and Lakshman Kadirgamar in the last administration. Tamils have been significant by their absence. There was almost a permanent exclusion of the Tamil minority from power at all levels. This exclusion it was that resulted in the struggle for Tamil rights which has ended up in the insurgency. To flag another forgotten fact –the Tamil Congress stood for sharing power at the centre and the Federal Party for sharing power on a regional basis. After the Tamil Congress faded away, the FP came to the fore and after they faded away we have the separatist Eelam parties taking up the Tamil cause. These separatist groups emerged only because of the failure of the Sinhala parties to ‘accommodate’ the Tamil people and address their grievances and, more importantly, because of the refusal to share power at the centre or with the province or at district level with them.

We must reject majoritarianism, it is not democracy, and at the same time we must reject divisive racial or ethnic politics and ethnic political parties forever. Confidence building measures must be arrived at through the consensual approach. It is within a democratic framework, where power is shared and merit the deciding factor, that we can find the necessary space to rise again.

It is indeed time for a group of our constitutional experts to compare the merits and demerits of the Executive Committee system with that of the system we have at present. After 30 years of Cabinet government and 30 years of this post 1978 mixed system there seems little doubt that the two systems have only resulted in confrontation, consequent hatred, centralisation and concentration of power and has not worked to the benefit of our country. It is imperative that President Rajapaksa think in terms of establishing a Constituent Assembly to consider a new constitution based on the Donoughmore principle which would restore participatory democracy and true self government for the people of this country.

For the present the President would need to have the 13th Amendment amended to make a reality of devolution. There is no doubt that we would encounter many difficulties when it comes to the matter of sharing power, from sharing budgetary allocations and sharing resources, to deliberate attempts by vested interests to sabotage any peace process or agreement based on power sharing. We would need to create new institutions that would secure the peace---yes, radical new thinking may be needed but the price is worth it. For instance, since mono-ethnic regions would only exacerbate the ethnic problem, we must consider carving out new regions. Perhaps the country can be divided into three or four regions. That would make sense, instead of the present nine provinces, with nine governors and nine chief ministers and cabinets––a structure which is today an absolute liability.

We may be multi ethnic but we are one nation. In the words of a recent song "This land belongs to you, this land belongs to me so let us live in harmony". Sharing power has become vital to manage a society, nay a country, which is pluralistic and divided such as ours. The majoritarian form of democracy (it does seem contradictory for ‘majoritarianism’ cannot be democratic) did not make for decision making by consensus and this is where we fell short. If, on the other hand, we share power that implies that whatever segment with whom power is shared will have a significant say in decision making and with it a sense of autonomy.

Under the Donoughmore system legislators, regardless of their political party, shared in the executive function of government and thus avoided bitterness. They were all involved in administration too; this is important considering the nexus between the politician and the people. In this country, the people, particularly in the rural areas, take all their problems to the MP. Government would be brought close to the people and the elected representatives of the people would be far more sensitive to the needs and demands of the people. Under the Donoughmore Constitution governance became a collective effort and the responsibility of all those who had been elected.

In recent years we have seen Ministers Professor GL Peiris, Karu Jayasuriya and Dinesh Gunawardena all advocate the restoration of the Donoughmore system and the sharing of executive power not only at national level but at the local level, from the Provincial Council down to the Municipal Council and the Urban Council. I recall that Professor Peiris very lucidly spelled out the advantages that would accrue from the adoption of the Executive Committee system. I do hope that these three influential Ministers would, in the national interest, revive this initiative, for this system is very much in keeping with our cultural heritage and is absolute necessary considering the conditions that currently exist in our country.

We need to deal with the sense of alienation which has enveloped the minorities in this country; they feel they do not belong here; we MUST restore their confidence and sense of belonging and with it, the organic character of our society. This feeling of being alienated could be remedied only by bringing them into the mainstream. If for a start the system is introduced in the Eastern Province Provincial Council it would most immediately help diffuse the explosive situation that exists in the province, which outside elements could exploit to the country’s detriment.

I do hope this plea would find support among political parties and civil society.

Monday, July 14, 2008

The following article from Malta makes great arguments in favor of direct democracy and maintains an optimistic perspective regarding the possibility of instating it. However, it fails to accurately assess the conditions under which most of the worlds inhabitants currently live. There is still a huge income gap between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, complacent and desperate. While it is easy to say that all people are created equal, reality does not support that idea. Of course we need direct democracy to help us reconcile the dichotomy between scarcity and excess that divides the world, but the first step is acknowledging that these major differences between people do exist. Both theorists and activists must be capable of frequently removing themselves from the ideological world to take on the realities of the street, realizing practical solutions while inching towards idealistic goals. -Editor

For the third time, the Maltese electorate faces a situation where its affairs are to be handled by a government propelled by a one-seat parliamentary majority. This time round, the ruling government has been propelled into office by less than half of the voting electorate. And, for yet another time, the politicians in office are raising the issue of constitutional amendments to save them from future embarrassment.

In Malta, parliamentarians put their heads together and take a vote in the House to change the Constitution.

On paper, Maltese electors are “masters in their own house”. In fact, they have no means of exercising what ought to be their prerogative: namely the endorsement or rejection of changes to their own Constitution.

Merits of direct democracy

This highlights the difference between today’s politics, which are becoming outdated, and the politics of this new century, which favours a shift from “representative democracy” to “direct democracy”

Modern democracy is giving more and more weight to the proposition that every adult person’s judgement about the conduct of public affairs is entitled to be given equal weight with that of every other person. All men and women have – or ought to have – an equal right to say how they wish to be governed. This is what the ancient Athenians meant by democracy.

Unfortunately, in most countries democratic development has been arrested, with every adult person exercising his or her political right every few years. Voters send their representatives to an elected assembly but, in the intervals between elections, which, in our case means anything between five years or so, it is these representatives who take all the decisions.

Convincing arguments

There are a few strong, convincing arguments why this must change. Among them is the growing inadequacy of representative democracy. There is a growing realisation that holding an election every few years is not only an imprecise way of expressing the wishes of voters (electors have to approve a package of proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis) but, to cap it all, voters have little control over their representatives in between elections.

The political agenda in democratic countries has been diluted with the triumph of pluralism over totalitarianism. The political scene is no longer dominated by a do or die confrontation between incompatible political and economic systems. The difference between the ‘Right’ and the ‘Left’, whether in the US, Italy, the UK or Malta, is about economic management, public spending, the environment and things like pensions and the health services. The contest between grand ideas and social classes is over, and the new politics are, relatively, about details, however discerning.

Another reason militating for change is the fact that there is no longer so much difference, in wealth or education, between voters and their elected representatives as in the past, when illiteracy was widespread.

There has been a relatively even distribution of prosperity with the middle class now forming the critical core of the electorate

The new democracy

Latter-day democracies will increasingly apply to themselves the argument they directed against totalitarian regimes. As people become better educated and better off, they will not be willing to let a handful of people from a party politburo take control of their destiny. It will be difficult to go on persuading people that they are fit only to put a tick on the voting paper every few years, and that the handful of MPs they elect are to take all the decisions.

More importantly, the reduced ideological confrontation will weaken the chief source of opposition to the emergence of the new democracy. This opposition comes from the political party machines that grew up under the system of representative democracy. These machines will be reduced down to size when direct democracy will gain its rightful foothold.

It has been rightly said that political parties are indispensable for the holding of elections when public opinion has to be mobilised. They are the building blocks of the parliaments chosen by the electorate. The introduction of direct democracy would, in a sense, diminish the importance both of elections and of parliaments, since the people through referenda would take most of the significant decisions. Parliaments and parties would not cease to exist. But the “representatives of the people” would perform the function proper to a legislature in partnership with the referendum.

Post-Cold War climate

In the post-cold-war politics, there is no cause for crusades in the name of ideologies. Class divisions have lost their meaning and most matter-of-fact issues are incapable of stirring excitement. This will make it excessively harder for political parties to resist innovation towards direct democracy.

This does not means that politics are about to become homogeneous. There will still be differences about how the economy could be best made to work, how to give expression to social solidarity at home and human solidarity overseas. In the less developed democracies, religious and ethnic issues will remain in the forefront. Once these issues cease to be dominant factors, it should be possible to organise politics in a less party-controlled, less vote-once-every-X-years way, and in a more directly democratic way.

Direct democracy has strong roots in Switzerland, and Australia. Some of the states in the US also resort to a vote by referendum every so often.

In Europe, Italy, Ireland, Denmark and France have all consulted their electorate.

The shift from representative to direct democracy calls for a knowledgeable electorate, well served by the communications media, and for a modicum of responsibility that goes with electoral maturity. The Swiss example proves that this change presents no insuperable difficulties.

Decisive argument

Decision by universal vote is not a flawless process. The electorate may find some burning questions too complicated – but there is no saying that politicians in Parliament are wiser than the mass. Lobbyists and the artillery of the media would subject the electorate to many a barrage. Individual electors are less vulnerable to this sort of pressure than politicians, because lobbyists cannot subvert the whole voting population

The decisive argument in favour of direct democracy is that a vote by referendum tells unambiguously what the people want on a particular issue, whereas one could not be sure, on a given issue, whether a parliamentary majority really reflects the wishes of the electoral majority. Moreover, it has been well said that direct democracy sharpens the ordinary elector’s sense of responsibility. It has also been well said that that the voter is the foundation stone of democracy – representative or direct. Anything that raises the elector’s level of political efficiency deserves the support of every democrat.

Direct democracy is the purest form of self-government, even though it may still rank as “the least bad form of government yet invented by man”.

Aristotle one said, “Democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers.” All the foregoing is encapsulated in this last sentence.